1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination
2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship
Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

The English Farm

Censorship has always been a very strong conditioning factor in our culture. Take history and one soon realises that, from very early on, we have been subject to laws that limited freedom of expression. If we are to believe our historians, the gag arrived in Portugal through the hands of the Catholic Church – under the pontificate of Gregory XI – who, at the request of king Dom Fernando, instituted Episcopal censorship.

That was the lever that the Civil Power had been waiting for, and it started regulating opinions, especially written ones, soon afterwards. And the situation lasted until a short while ago, until the end of the regime that we named 'Estado Novo' [New State] and which used Censorship as one of its main pillars, instituting a strict control of the media. But it went further, as it exercised an abominable pressure over the opinion and thought of any one of us. Previous censorship of publications, systematic apprehension of many of them, detentions and imprisonment for those who dared to voice their thoughts; enormities that were so often “legitimated” by courts that, in its majority, operated as one of the repressive arms of those rogues.

Until the [Revolution of the] 25th of April [1974] arrived, and the voices that had been silent for so long (at least since the time of Dom Fernando) exploded. Some say there were abuses. Opinions. A free voice, however foolish, is always better than the sight of a gagged man. And legislation in that sense was issued.

“Tout est bien qui finit bien” [All is well that ends well], we thought, looking back (without nostalgia). You wish. It didn’t take long for us to see that stronger than the written and accepted Law, there was, for example, the tutorship of the English people that had been keeping us as workers on this farm of theirs, for centuries. Some of those bosses came here a while ago, allegedly on holidays. Two of them, a couple, brought three children along, and on a day of drinking – which is to say, a common day for them – only two of those three children were left. The other one, a little girl, disappeared while the parents and friends celebrated, maybe a trip to the supermarket (or any other futile motive that they like to solemnize) with more than ten bottles of wine, a few brandies and other stuff that makes one dizzy. It should be reminded that while this went on, the children were alone in a bedroom, far away from the surveillance of those who had the duty to care for them. But maybe that is only for us peasants that populate this English farm!

Well, moving on: the little girl disappeared, the parents, when they realised it (?) immediately called the televisions (from their own country) and afterwards the police. Years (and many complications) later we continue without knowing what happened to the poor little girl. I should stress that during the investigation, the English (in whose country tens of children disappear every month, and not all of them reappear) found themselves, at a given time, at risk of being, at least, accused of very gross neglect. And in order to prevent that (and possibly worse), they sent their own policemen over, an attitude that was agreed upon by our overseer (you know the name). The problem was that their policemen who came over to meddle in the case, arrived at the same conclusion as our own experts. And as that could not be permitted – even because the little girl’s parents are friends with Her Majesty’s “premier” – they were sent back home, while around here, the peasant who coordinated the investigation was fired. Then, a few more diligences and other trifles were performed (to distract the English and the Portuguese) until the process was shelved.

“The worst is for those who leave”, we use to say around here. Therefore, just accept the fatality, forget about the matter and get back to your drinks.

That was what the excellencies, our bosses, wanted, and therefore we should comply.

But the Portuguese policeman who was forced to abandon the search under orders – it seems to me, directly issued from number 10 at Downing Street – refused to accept the (lack of) resolution for the case. And as being a policeman, he was forbidden to speak about the investigation, he decided to abandon his profession in order to be able to do so. And that was how, already a free man, Gonçalo Amaral wrote down the testimony of what had been discovered through thousands of diligences, many of which were performed outside of the boundaries of this farm that we inhabit.

In the shape of a book, the testimony of what was contained in the inquiry – and only that, without any opinions – was sold by the thousands. Because the vast majority of the peasants that we are, cannot sleep in peace without finding out what happened to the poor little girl. But her parents did not appreciate the “caprice”. And in order to prove that they are still in charge, they asked a Portuguese court to gag Gonçalo Amaral. And while it was at it, it should do what used to be done during those infamous times: it should apprehend the books that were still left.

The court complied. And thus we found out that the thing that is called freedom of expression or the right to an opinion, included in our Constitution as fundamental rights, stop being such, when the interests of two subjects of queen Elizabeth II are so much more fundamental.

We can make a fuss but I don’t know if it’s worth it anymore, because those that we elected to legislate and to ensure our freedom, upon finding out about the very strange and inacceptable decision of the Lisbon court, decided it was best to remain silent…

And those who remain silent, consent!

This decision had at least one merit: it made clear that we continue to be the English people’s farm.

"We can make a fuss but I don’t know if it’s worth it anymore, because those that we elected to legislate and to ensure our freedom, upon finding out about the very strange and inacceptable decision of the Lisbon court, decided it was best to remain silent…

And those who remain silent, consent!"----------------------------------------------------------

Couldn't have put it better and for me, this is the most distressing part of it all- the silence of those who should be vocal!

@ posts #2 and #3, not forgetting Clarence Mitchell. According to the Daily Mail, before he went to work at the MMU, he was touting himself to the Palace as Prince William's press officer. He was told where to get off!

The PJ can't reopen anything, only the Public Ministry has the legality to reopen an archived case. The PJ is a criminal police and just investigates. Now the McCanns or they Tapas friends could in fact add new elements to the process so that it would be re-opened, and then, the investigation to Madeleine McCann's disappearence would continue.

The McCanns asked to be assistants to the process, when it was archived, they could have used that legal status to ask to be re-opened. They could have done the same as arguidos, for example, by answering the questions made by the PJ.

Both the McCanns, the Tapas friends, can still force the re-opening of the archived process by, for example, offering themselves to do the previously refused reconstruction (among many other new important elements that they could add), that would force the Public Ministry to lift a certificate form the archived process and thus reopening it.

The only reason the McCanns don't do anything for the reopening of the process is because they know too well that the investigation would follow the strongest lead, the homicide [accidental or not] and the cadaver occultation.

Dogs don't take sides they are impartial . All dogs want from human beings is love food and shelter . I wonder if Eddie and Keela are now redundant . They have never proved to be wrong before , they were hired out by the British Establishment for a very high fee throughout the world as far as I can gather . Have they now lost their jobs does anybody know ?

David Miliband positioning himself for a leadership contest in forthcoming election-he won't want his name mentioned in connection with this case, so if any British political pressure is still being brought to bear on this case, you can bet it will continue.Potential Whistleblowers are out there, but need our press to be freed from the super- injunction, otherwise who do they blow the whistle to?

A few points:A portuguese judge ordered the temporary ban on Amaral's book, not a British judge. The McCanns are represented by a Portuguese lawyer, a Portuguese PR company. Presumably for the money amongst other reasons. The Portuguese are hardly whiter than white here.If Amaral was forced off the investigation, it was done with the compliance of the Portuguese authorities, the Portuguese government. Why are you blaming the British system? As in that big bad England made us do it. Surely the Portuguese must take some responsibility for this farce? Portugal is perhaps less well off than Britain but it is a separate country, not a colony, and has it's own glorious history, language and culture.

Amaral is dropping hints about Madeleine's health. I hope he has some solid evidence to back this up. And if he does, why didn't he put it in the book? Why didn't he put everything into the book in fact? If you are going to write a book you may as well give all the evidence.Go for broke. What was he waiting for?

I get as tired of all these 'oh bless snr amaral' type comments, plus delusional comments stating that the mccanns are going to be found out, as I used to get sick of all those 'bless you maddie you little angel' type crap that used to populate the mirror forum. This case, that has consumed me for 3 years, is very frustrating. The news and clues trickle out, a bit at a time, and we try to fit it together like a jigsaw puzzle made of jelly.Half the time it's in Portuguese, and the translations into English are poor, making close analysis of the text very difficult. (This doesn't mean I don't thank those who translate, I am grateful, it's just that it's clearly not being translated by people with English as a mother tongue).Also for the most part, professional journalists or lawyers are not writing about this case, we are reliant on amateur sleuths. Still, this is better than nothing.

It would be better if all commenters stuck to the facts.

There are only a few conclusions to this case:

The McCanns are guilty:They are definitely guilty of lying but the question is, was it a big lie or a small lie? Were they guilty of a) murder (unlikely) or b) manslaughter or c) merely fudging the details (the timeline, the locking of doors, the drinking) in order to protect their status as good parents.Status and image, as Amaral points out, is highly important to the McCanns. They may even have a self-justification for that: if they are perceived as poor neglectful parents, people will take their search for Madeleine McCann less seriously. Or they may just be very narcissistic. People can justify any behaviour: their continued efforts to keep themselves in the limelight may be down to feeling that they can 'give back' to the world, repay their sins even, by highlighting the whole issue of child protection. We can understand them wanting the money. It's a very human vice. I can understand their reluctance to reopen the Portuguese investigation. Why would they want to be arrested? How will that help their remaining children? But I must say it surprises me the extent to which they present themselves as the victimised parents, giving lectures to CEOPS and the like. If they are guilty, why don't they just keep their heads down, thinking phew, we were lucky to get away with that.The other option is that the McCanns are innocent, Madeleine was abducted and that the peculiar behaviour of the British police, British government, the tapas 7 and the McCanns themselves are because they have certain information which they cannot divulge.

I hope Amaral's confidence is justified. I really do. But why are the McCanns doing this if they didn't think they could win?

Lets not forget that Portugal is Britain's oldest ally. as to speak - lol. So what are friends for ? Anyway maybe the mcs will cough up and choke on a traditional 5 o clock teatime, such beverage having been introduced to Her Maj. subjects by a simple , honest, Port. Princess. Fancy, I would rather drink a glass of some nice ruby vintage Port wine which was dragged away from the clutches of our such loyal, lol , ally.Jamar

Could the PJ request the reopening of the case by saying they wished to follow new lines of enquiry they were not able to pursue previously due to the McCanns not cooperating, if not downright lying.

For example, the elusive credit cards of the McCanns they were told did not exist, and Madeleine's medical history, (surely she must have some, somewhere), plus checking out Kate McCanns supposed six deaths in a week.

How about wanting to interview Payne regarding the witness statements of the Gaspars? The case would have to be reopened to do that.

If it has to depend on the McCanns and their Tapas chums to ask for it to be reopened we will be waiting for ever.

Funny thing you don't like to read how other people see the British - where were your protests when the Portuguese were being called "sardine munchers" and worse? It's a fact that many English tourists in the Algarve are completely drunk at around lunch time, and on a daily basis. What do you expect? Do you really expect the Portuguese to be insulted and humiliated for 2 and a half years, and to graciously thank the British for that, as well? If you think we do not criticise our own authorities in this affair: read again! The article also criticises the behaviour of the Portuguese authorities. Some Portuguese have blood on their hands, in this case, that much has become obvious. Time will show who they are and time will bring them before justice, to account for the way in which they bowed to the English.There are many people who have a lot to fear and a lot to lose in this case.Time will show, I promise you.And when that time comes, there will not be British vs. Portuguese. The Truth knows no nationalities.

Joana, I think I made a mistake.I just wrote a comment with the intention to publicise it under the English text about wrapped documents and wrongly I posted it under the Portuguese text.Could you please correct it for me? Thanks.

"This case, that has consumed me for 3 years, is very frustrating. The news and clues trickle out, a bit at a time, and we try to fit it together like a jigsaw puzzle made of jelly.Half the time it's in Portuguese, and the translations into English are poor, making close analysis of the text very difficult. (This doesn't mean I don't thank those who translate, I am grateful, it's just that it's clearly not being translated by people with English as a mother tongue)."

Anon #13, thank you for your gracious compliment on our translators' language skills. It is always extremely rewarding to read how much people appreciate our efforts. On the other hand, if you think that reading our poor English is such a difficult task - why don't you stick with your own country's news? I'm sure you'd be just as well informed as you are now, after reading so many articles in bad English, or - God forbid! - in Portuguese.

No house of cards can stand forever. All you need is for one card to falter or be knocked loose and the rest will tumble. So it is with the case of Madeleine McCann. For the child's sake and for justice let's hope this house of cards begins to rattle in the breeze of truth flowing through it in the very near future.

There will be vindication for Madeleine and for all those who know the truth. The rats will flee the ship, Mitchell foremost among them, and all that will be left is the Tapas 7 all being arrested. I hope there is someone kind to look after all their children and explain to them that their parents are liars and criminals.

The McCanns may have been thinking of protecting their remaining children by wriggling out of being charged, but think how many other kids would have been protected if these two irresponsible, dangerous parents had been charged with neglect, and endangerment, which led to serious harm to Madeleine.

A good spell of imprisonment for them would certainly have made the rest of the potential child neglecting parents, who think it's OK to go out and leave the kids, sit up and take notice.

As it is, they probably don't give a damn. The McCanns have got away with it, why shouldn't they!

Oh, and by the way neglectful, dangerous, parents out there, if you should go out and leave the kids and harm comes to one of them, then make sure the body is not found, and then you can go get yourself lots of publicity, and a nice little Fund set up.

Be sure to say you did check on the kids every ten minutes though, and the poor kid must have been abducted. In fact, now that you come to think of it, wasn't that the back of a man you caught sight of fleeing down the road carrying what looked like it might have been a child!

As the world will realise you were checking regularly, as were the McCanns apparently, it was not your fault at all that the child disappeared, and tremendous pity will be taken on you. You may even get to visit the Pope.

Meanwhile, everybody else will go look for the big, bad, abductor for you.

Don't worry if there is any cadaver scent left behind, you know those dogs, it would be ludicrous to believe them, and anyway, the McCanns have ignored and scoffed at them, so why shouldn't you.

Even the police don't appear to be giving the dogs any backing, though they were always right previous to the McCann case.

Don't forget to make sure the Fund's small print reads that the money can be used however you wish. That is very important.

It will also help greatly of course if you are not working class, but if you are, just plead that you are innocent due to copying the McCanns' parenting example, and if they weren't charged, why should you be, which would be a perfectly valid reason given the McCanns have not been.

Anon 13:First of all, no one said the british were the only ones to blame.If they really sabotaged the investigation and have been covering up that child's death and protecting the culprits then they did it and keep doing it only because the portuguese authorities allow/allowed them to do it.But it's not nice to see our country and our people being criticized, is it?

Secondly, if you have problems with the translations try learning some portuguese.I'm portuguese and even though my english is far from perfect I use it almost all of the time in this blog because I know that if I write in portuguese , wich would be much easier for me as it would take less time and effort, I know the majority wouldn't understand me.

And lastly, why would Mr Amaral tell everything he knows in his book? If he has any evidence that he's keeping secret he's doing it for a good reason, like a future trial.I have no doubts that the mccanns are doing this because they think they can win.That doesn't mean they will.And if they do, this does not end here.

Anon 13, if you are so consumed with the case (as I am too), why don't you learn Portuguese so you can read the articles in the original? This is what I am doing, it is a difficult language to speak, but not to read if you already know other languages such as French, Italian or Latin. In the meantime I am immensely grateful to people like Joana and Astro who do such a wonderful job of translating interesting stuff for us, presumably in addition to holding down full time jobs of their own. I never have any trouble understanding them, but sometimes they have to sacrifice style for substance in order to give us the correct interpretation. They are not professional translators after all.

Anon 13"We can understand them wanting the money.It is only a human vice".ONLY for the VIPs, the Celebs and the Famous and generally "plugged in",I am afraid!It is in the same line as :"We are British and we support freedom of expression..... at the ONLY condition it ONLY applies to our "family" :))

I for one am VERY grateful for the excellent work this site has done and is still doing to get justice for an innocent child ,and if the above poster can translate any better then let him/her try it ,keep up your GREAT work Joana and co ,xxx

If it is brought to the attention of the Portuguese public at large that the Attorney General has something in his possession that proves Madeleine is dead, would that be enough to get him to reopen the case?

After all, it is not going to look too good for him if he is sitting on something that could stop this abduction farce, and the begging of money for the Madeleine Fund from innocent unsuspecting people.

A bit modesty would do you good. Your post might be OK, but your criticizing the translators who are doing a fantastic job, lacks taste. I'm hoping you understand what I've just wrote ;) I'm Portuguese, you see!

there are too many doubters to ever be silenced by the McCann's... even if the injunction is upheld (nothing is surprising anymore) they will have shot themselves in the foot by trying to stamp out free speech

McCann and your wife - we will never believe your lies just because you want us to

you have made too many mistakes and one day you will make the blunder that puts you behind bars

Of course no one approve censorship and Mr Amaral has a right to publish a book about his investigation but he has no right to make a deduction from his investigation ; the reader is intelligent enough to make his own deduction.

Ironside @ post #37, the FSS also let Damilola Taylor's family down. They do however do a lot of good work. It's surprising the McCanns are willing to accept the FSS' findings what with the recent high profile scandals of the Nickell and Taylor cases but are discrediting Martin Grime despite his dogs never having given false alerts.

Hi Shubob..I still feel something happened that weekend that the Mccanns were allowed to leave Portugal in a hurry. There should have been more questioning on the following Monday. Shit hit the fan somewhere..Steve Kingston was reporting outside the police station on Live TV that police believe Madeleine died from a broken neck...Now where did that come from?...Posters were posting on sites as this was being reported...so not a forum myth.

Of course, all this is a fairy story invented by the Blacksmith Bureau.

As it happens, yes, the government has refused to let Detective Sergeant de Freitas attend Daylight Tuesday. And as it happens, no, it is not a conspiracy.

As usual with this dreadful Labour administration, which couldn’t conspire its way out of a paper bag, the various bureaucrats began fighting amongst themselves over the confidentiality issues; the politicians, like nearly everybody else in the McCann case, were unable to determine what the fuss was about because they hadn’t mastered the brief; the Sir Humphreys of the civil service sweetly pointed out that “British interests” would be damaged if de Freitas was allowed to attend; and a Labour politician scared of being considered weak in the defence of the UK – as they have been since 1945, as the Sir Humphreys are perfectly aware – signed off the refusal to let him go.

The various departments and police forces involved have not yet agreed a press release and are hoping that the decision will not leak yet. With the Blacksmith Bureau on the case? No chance. Until they do so – if ever – DS de Freitas has miraculously been found to be “on leave” on January 12 and therefore unable to attend.

More details later. It is not the good news for the McCanns that you might think. Posted by john blacksmith at 10:21

Anon13 Imo Team McCann are doing what they do best calling Mr Amarals bluff as they do with anyone that questions them, upto now they have bluffed their way through this case having help from Governments and rich backers but this will not last I assure you, Im not quite understanding why you criticize the translation it is no problem, I question why you need to say this?, Joana, Astro and Co do a fantastic job its bloggs/forums and others like this that upset Team Mccann and their little forum supporters, as I poster said yesterday "could this blogg be closed down by Team Mccann" my answer is NO CHANCE, they are losing control now and this hearing next week is just the start.

YES you are correct Mccanns are guilty,at the least Neglect we all known that but imo it is far worse than that far worse.

Clarence Mitchell's role in all this never ceases to amaze me. Absolutely astounds me. He knows their stories have never added up and has continued to "muddy the waters" with his comments about their not wearing watches, his phoney police conferences etc. etc.

Anon 13 wrote "Half the time it's in Portuguese, and the translations into English are poor, making close analysis of the text very difficult. (This doesn't mean I don't thank those who translate, I am grateful, it's just that it's clearly not being translated by people with English as a mother tongue)."

Anon 13, please give an example of a poor translation.

Joana, Astro and Kazlux thank you for all your hard work regarding this case. I appreciate the time you all give. Otherwise I would possibly be a UK mushroom in the dark being fed McPink manipulated sh o ! te!

I agree totally the Portuguese authorities are as corrupt as there British counterparts.In some ways are more so, it could be argued the UK wrongly are trying to protect its own.They may have taken an approach that nothing can Bring Madeleine back, and that damage limitation was the best outcome for the rest of the extended family and children etc.Whereas clearly the Portuguese have hung there man out to dry so far!

However i dont want to get into this!The truth should lead the way and nothing else.Its about finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine and thats it, the rest will follow.

Luckily like in the UK the people/citizens of the country fight such corruption as best as they can.

Sr Amaral is not making any deductions that are not made by the official investigators.

They also came to the conclusion that the child is dead.

So, No.41 do you think the McCanns should be allowed to go throughout the world telling people that Madeleine was taken off by an abductor when there is no evidence whatsoever that she was?

And to be begging money to be sent to their Fund?

Do you think it is OK for the innocent trusting public to be sending them money without them knowing about the findings and deductions of the official investigation?

To not inform the public of the truth is beyond irresponsible.

Some of those sending are young children raiding their piggy banks, and old age pensioners who are probably going without themselves to send money to the McCanns.

Yet, there are the well heeled, rich McCanns, living in a great big house, and having used money from the Fund to pay the mortgage for this expensive house, who have not yet been seen to give a penny of their own money for their search.

It is their own money to do with as they like, they have made sure of that in the wording of this Trust.

It should be stopped, and then let's see whether they would be willing to contribute their own money to continue the search.

What's the betting!

Sr Amaral's book should be published in the UK, and as soon as possible, to help put a stop to this farce.

Comment 18 - this case should not be about Portugal's wounded sense of national pride, the chip on the shoulder syndrome which is increasingly evident on this blog. It's about a missing child, not how fed up you are with drunken Brits or how expensive property is. That's the basic problem - some of the PT commentators have simply conflated all the things they see as wrong with Portugal's standing in the world and cobbled it onto Madeleine's case. It isn't about YOU, it isn't about Portugal, it isn't about Britain.This attitude even shows up in the translator's legendary tetchniness when pulled up about the most minor things, when they end up defending to the death things which are clearly wrong, and then go running round the web making sure that all the 'corect' versions tally with their preffered one.Comment 13 even prefaced their comments by saying how grateful they were for the translations, but that wasn't good enough, oh no someone has to get all snippy.

Anon @ 10: The dogs are no way jobless. At least the FBI still relies on their skills. Therefore, Martin Grime, Eddie and Keela will be in the USA end of January 2010 to give a performance at the FBI Academy at Quantico/Va. And, to avoid the obvious question «How do you know?» I have it from Martin Grime's mouth. Even though I followed the postings in this forum, I do not post often myself. Therefore, let me give you something to think about: Many comments have been written about the injunction decreed by a Lisbon judge to silence Gonçalo Amaral and ban his book «A Verdade da Mentira». Allegedly, the injunction was issued because of Amaral's claim Maddie to be dead. Nobody thought a little further ahead. It came to nobodies mind that many authors of books dealing with the case, some even written by collegues of Amaral, have explicitly articulated the same claim without being sued by the McCanns. None of them has been sued or Carter-Rucked. Why not? The claim brought forward against Amaral is good for public consumption and hopefully a money machine for the McCanns. The real reason however is something totally different. Gonçalo Amaral ist the ONLY author who mentions the testimony by the Medical Ddoctors Gaspar about their observations on the occasion of previous holidays with the McCanns and others spent in Majorca. It is the same testimony which was withheld from PJ by British police until October 2007. These testimonies clearly accuse David Payne and Gerry McCann of paedophilia! This is the true reason why Amaral had to be silenced by all means! Imagine, the McCanns would put their fingers into this wound by mentioning these testimonies in their case against Amaral? Wouldn't you say that many people in Portugal, Great Britain and elsewhere would suddenly start asking a lot of questions and the cash flow come to a grinding halt? Think about it!

I apologize for any offence about the translation. I am grateful but as someone who has translated from French to English I know that ideally one always translates back into your mother tongue. It's hard work translating I know and I'm sorry I don't have the time at present to learn Portuguese. I can get the gist of it but what I'm talking about is fine reading of the text. After all we are trying to understand every single word here...to analyse precisely what is being said, what isn't being said.Some of Mr Amaral has said is difficult to understand in English. Please don't be upset about that, it's just a fact. by the way fundamented= based in English.I really don't care if the British are criticised and I have visited Portugal and like the country very much but the fact of the matter is, if Portugal were prepared to really follow up on this case Britain could not stop them. The crime happened on sovereign Portuguese soil not British soil.The Portuguese could also surely have prevented the McCanns from leaving.I spent some time today reading the terrible account of Lady Meyers trials trying to get her abducted children back from Germany. The German courts didn't give a damn about British court rulings. Perhaps it's a shame that Portugal didn't feel able to behave in the same way and stand up to the British.But the over-emotional, over-sensitive reactions to my comment above is precisely what is tiresome about McCann blogs. I understand, it's a frustrating and upsetting situation, but only analysis not high emotion will sort out this case.Also lets say Madeleine really has been abducted, the McCanns should thank sites like this because all publicity is good publicity in a situation like this. As long as we are talking about Madeleine, this is good. Unfortunately, as I said before, the McCanns care far too much about their own personal image rather than their supposed eventual goal..to find their daughter.

Post 13. It seems to me that it's the 'political class' that are ultimately at fault, as well as the uncooperative parents of course. I for one am grateful for the excellent translations here which open our eyes to the truth. In our democracies that's far more important than the odd misplaced word. Let's keep a sense of perspective here. As for sticking to the facts, well that's what the PJ did so well, going with the evidence, not all of which was published remember.

"I can understand their reluctance to reopen the Portuguese investigation. Why would they want to be arrested?"Why are they so afraid of being arrested?

"But I must say it surprises me the extent to which they present themselves as the victimised parents, giving lectures to CEOPS and the like. If they are guilty, why don't they just keep their heads down, thinking phew, we were lucky to get away with that."Because they had a brazen aggressive attitude from the start, such as spreading lies about the PJ. You know, as in"Attack is the best form of defence".And they are incapable of leaving the limelight and returning to obscurity (and devote more of their time to their two remaining children).

"The other option is that the McCanns are innocent, Madeleine was abducted and that the peculiar behaviour of the British police, British government, the tapas 7 and the McCanns themselves are because they have certain information which they cannot divulge."Actually there is another option. Madeleine is dead as indicated by the dogs' reaction, as a result of something the McCanns know about and probably gave their consent to, but not directly by their hand.

Note: I am not one to be easily ever involved in conspiracy theories and certainly do not claim to know more than I do (which is nothing).However, if person(s) important enough were responsible for Madeleine's demise, that would explain the behaviour you describe above.

Anon 54, that is a really interesting point about the Doctors Gaspar, and I think you may be on to something there. I live in Birmingham myself, not far from Acocks Green where the Gaspars were mentioned as practising - I must try and find out if they are still there or if they have been whooshed. I sincerely hope not, although I am sure it is likely they have been visited.

As far as i am concerned the translators have done an outstanding job,and made this case accessible to many who normally would not have been privy to this info.It has served to strengthen their cause in the fight for Truth.

But if you advocate freedom of speech...you should bloody well allow it.....you dont have to agree.All this in fighting does no good for the cause and i am sure the good ones outweigh the bad.

@ post #48, I am not ashamed to admit that Clarence Mitchell's role in all this is of more interest to me than that of the McCanns. I just can't fathom why anyone would do what he does given the facts! I'm baffled!

To anon 8 well, MML) @#13, are you in any way suggesting that Joana, Astro and others who take the trouble to translate the articles do it in a "poor" manner and that by doing that they intentionally "twist" the essence of the same articles? That they do it to suit some "hidden agenda" of their own?! That is so unfair, it's very low indeed!

By the way, have you had a go at reading the rogatory interviews made by the Leicester police to the Mccann friends? That's fine and proper "Her Majesty's english" for you, don't you agree?...oh, but what do I know, those people are all highly qualified professional people, surelly they DO speak their mother tongue perfectly, it must be my fault if I could not make head or tail from what seemed to me complete gibberish, I'm only a portuguese who can only manage some "broken" english, poor little me. Maybe you would care to translate those rogatory questionings into portuguese for me? But make sure you do a good job at it, not a "poor" one, that will make "the analysis of the text very difficult"( the interviewees have managed that alredy, thank you very much)...Will you, pleeease...

Only one more thing:You must be aware that only a fraction of the police files were disclosed to the public, and, unlike us, Mr. Amaral has knowledge of a lot of facts and evidence that is in those undisclosed files, maybe some details of Madeleine's health issues are among those, who knows? Or maybe not...I believe he was mentioning what is easily available for anyone who cares to do some research on the medical condition called "coloboma", the fact that it is almost always connected to other very serious and potentially fatal health conditions, like heart disease.

Last, but not least, a BIG THANK YOU to Joana, Astro and others who so kindly take precious time from their busy lives to keep us all informed on all angles of this sad matter, the english people in particular. In fact, since the english people CANNOT rely on their own media coverage, if it was not for blogs like this they would be in the dark of so many important facts regarding the case.

This is a bloody good opinion article and no diversion tactics discussing the quality of translation (which is excellent, btw) will ultimately manage to conceal the obvious: the Portuguese won't be blindsided by the McCann's tactics.If you don't like the article, just move on.If you don't like the blog, go back to reading the Sun.Joana does a great job, publishing all sorts of opinions about the case.As usual, the pros come out in hordes when an author hits the right keys: telling the truth as it is. Like it or not, it's still a great article.

As I understand it, the role played by the cadaver dog is either to locate human remains or to indicate where human remains may have been present so that trace evidence can be recovered - for example, blood or other biological residues.

A dog signalling cadaver scent alone could not be presented to a court as evidence.

In this case, biological residues were recovered, but not of sufficient quality or quantity to be able to say conclusively that they originated with Madeleine. The number of markers which matched was not sufficient to be able to draw the conclusion that the residues were from her body.

These are very reliable dogs. Gerry made a statement in the recent interview that cadaver dogs had been shown to be ''incredibly unreliable'', and he should not have been allowed to make such a sweeping statement without being challenged on it. The published data I have seen has indicated quite the opposite, so where is the evidence to which Gerry refers ?

Either way, what the police were left with at the end of the dog searches was the following :

1. Indications that the cadaver dog gave a positive response to Flat 5A, the car used by the McCanns, several items associated with Kate and Madeleine McCann, including items of clothing belonging to each, and cuddle cat.

2. Indications that the cadaver dog gave no response to any other premises occupied by the McCann's friends, or to the home and grounds or Robert Murat

3. Indications that the blood dog gave a positive response in the same locations as the cadaver dog.

4. Indications that the blood dog also gave no response to any other premises occupied by the McCann friends or Robert Murat

Now, it doesn't matter how damning this looks, it remains, in evidential terms, circumstantial, unless it can be shown that the biological residues recovered belong to madeleine.

However - it does not mean that the dogs failed, or made a mistake. A dog can indicate that a cadaver had been present at some point - just because it isn't there now doesn't mean that the dog is wrong. In fact, strictly speaking, it is completely impossible to state whether the dog is wrong or not,at this time, other than to say that if one dog was wrong, it would appear the other one was too, because both reacted in the same spot, and biological residues WERE recovered. It just isn't possible to prove that what they smelled was Madeleine.

So, it isn't evidence which could be put before a court in isolation, but that doesn't mean that the evidence is discredited.

IMO Mitchell was brought in to do what Alistair Campbell used to do for Bliar and use the the vilest spin no matter what the facts are. Simple as that. Its all a cover up for some politician and unless a little tapas piggy squeals then it will stay that way.

Anon @#54, but the Gaspars statements have been all over the net by now, it has been printed in portuguese newspapers, discussed about by commentators on portuguese tv shows, in blogs and forums. If that is the main reason for taking legal action against Mr. Amaral, why only him and no one else?...

@ post #67, you really think it's about money? Surely, it's got to be more than that like power, etc? Clarence Mitchell's actions appear to be worse than Judas' over 2000 years ago. Will he now replace Judas as being the measure of betrayal and generally being the lowest of the low?

Just an aside here - did you know that when the holiday was being planned, the group were aware of the lack of a baby listening service at the resort, and so asked for, and were assured that they would be allocated apartments close together, so that they could operate their own system of checking ?

Therefore, the McCanns and their friends had already made the decision that they would be leaving the children alone at night before they even saw the resort, ascertained how far away they would be from where they intended to dine, determined how secure the premises were, or conducted any kind of risk assessment. (as confirmed in the Rogatory interviews)

Let's see it for what it is, if it were not for the political pressure imposed by the English this case would have been solved by now. Yes the Portuguese have been subservient and I would say some have even been blackmailed but I reiterate if the English government had not meddled in the case it would likely have been solved.

Many of the English were so upset that Portugal even dared to suspect the McCanns that they urged boycotting Portugal. I wonder what the reaction of the English would have been if they had experienced the international denigration that the Portuguese have experienced, would they declare war. Why are you getting so upset over some article published in a blog by a Portuguese author who is not only critical of England but also of his own native land? Imagine turning on your television set in a foreign land and watching your country being mocked relentlessly without justification. Imagine how the Portuguese police felt when they saw Mr. Milliband and other British politicians accompanying people suspected of harming their child to the European parliament to address a conference on a child welfare initiative, how demoralizing is that?

When I'm not content with an information source I search for some other source. Those of you who live in Britain why don't you demand that your journalists start behaving like journalists instead of having the McCaan spokesperson "shape the stories" for them.

Anonymous 13, You're sick and tired of "bless Sr. Amaral" well I'm sick and tired of the references to Mr. Amaral the disgraced detective and to the deeply religious aggrieved catholic doctors, just to name a few.

"their continued efforts to keep themselves in the limelight may be down to feeling that they can 'give back' to the world, repay their sins even, by highlighting the whole issue of child protection."

What a delusional statement. What exactly have they done to highlight the issue of child protection? Do you mean to say that their assertion that it's perfectly normal to dine out and leave 3 toddlers alone in an apartment in a foreign land is good for highlighting child protection? How much money have they donated to child welfare causes? I guess in your mind censoring and suing everyone left and right who doesn't accept their story is, as you say, a way to repay their sins.

Post 55. I suggest that this post is another classic distraction, the post appears agreeable, plausible, but with the intended message 'Madeleine was abducted' embedded in it. Please ignore these trolls.

You should look at your close reading skills, rather than what you term "poor translations", for you completely missed the point and any further textual analysis would be time wasted. The author made it clear that Britain's colonial attitude is only effective in Portugal, if those who can dismiss it within Portugal, do not do so and are therefore fully complicit.

TM are not so confident of winning, that is why they attempted to prevent any defense by Amaral, through their attempts at dis-arming him financially. Still, they will have some confidence given their 'luck' with the Portuguese Judiciary, to date, if not it's Police Force, who were more reluctant to Kowtow.

That was before though. Before they were forced to hire an expensive Portuguese libel lawyer and a company who specialise in 'Reputation Management' and before several hundred thousand people had discovered for themselves that the evidence gathered is open to interpretation and certainly an interpretation that in the words of the PT AG "seems more likely".

The judge at the hearing will have many interested parties eagerly awaiting her solemn judgement.

If Mr Amaral had written his book, just avoiding carefully to give a motive to Mccann's lawyers to find an excuse to have the book banned, leaving to his reader the choice to deduce by himself what had happen to Madeleine, the Mccann team could not have opposed its publishing in the UK ; In publishing frankly the deduction of the investigation Mr Amaral gives the Mccann the right to think they have to protect their reputation, haven't they ?

Anon@ 13, Your post is a joke: "Amaral is dropping hints about Madeleine's health. I hope he has some solid evidence to back this up. And if he does, why didn't he put it in the book?" AMARAL CAN'T WRITE ABOUT WHAT REMAIN in judicial secrecy, then his book is nothing else then a copy about facts and conclusions achieved by the investigation and released by the "Ministerio Publico". Writing and revealing more facts then what was released, it is a crime. "... the translations into English are poor, making close analysis of the text very difficult." You can always stick in the very professional articles(????!!!!!) from British journalists. Since you have difficult to understand facts, maybe you can understand better the British spin-machine.

"They are definitely guilty of lying but the question is, was it a big lie or a small lie? Were they guilty of a) murder (unlikely) or b) manslaughter or c) merely fudging the details (the timeline, the locking of doors, the drinking) in order to protect their status as good parents." REALLY? WHEN A CHILD IS MISSING, HOW CAN YOU measure a lie? Small or big? In that situation any lie is not acceptable at all, on any grounds. A lie from parents, to protect their own image is the first point to indicate how poor parents they are: Their image against the safety and the life of their daughter. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THEIR BEHAVIOUR. If they lie it was to hide something serious and they know, the locked or unlocked doors have an important clue ( probably the most important clue) to solve the case and locate the child. There is no innocent lies in a crime. This is obvious since minute one.

"We can understand them wanting the money. It's a very human vice." Non, WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND. IT IS A VERY PERVERT VICE. Private detectives are useful to pursue and frame wife's or husbands in marriage problems, not to follow clues in a missing person, special when there is professional polices supported by governments and at free costs, available. Expensive lawyers are useful if you know, you made a huge and horrendous crime and will be not easy for you to runaway free.

"I can understand their reluctance to reopen the Portuguese investigation. Why would they want to be arrested? How will that help their remaining children?" NOW... YOU GET THE POINT. They know, the arrest will be a fatality if the case is re-opened because the investigation will follow the track which has more strong evidences. And since there is no strangers signals at the crime scene, the evidences will made them arguidos again. THE TWINS, as MADDIE, were and still pieces at side, to use on their victims life-style.

GOD BLESS AMARAL to achieve justice for a little girl and many thanks to all people here which fight for justice and for free-speech. We welcome all opinions, even if they were slightly different then ours. We can always discuss and from that discussion we all learn something. Thank you Joana, Astro, etc. Your work here is very professional. For some days your articles (translations) became more important then the spin published in the media. AND YOU REACH PUBLIC FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD. I STILL RECOMMEND YOUR BLOG TO ALL PEOPLE I MEET AND WOULD LIKE TO BE INFORMED ABOUT MADELEINE ISSUES.

ANon @ 55=13, "if Portugal were prepared to really follow up on this case Britain could not stop them. The crime happened on sovereign Portuguese soil not British soil.The Portuguese could also surely have prevented the McCanns from leaving" . WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS CASE IS NOT PORTUGAL AGAINST UK or vice-verse? THE CASE IS NOT A SENSORSHIP TO EVALUATE THE CONFIDENCE AND THE COMPETENCE OF PJ, or the corruption on British police to release only crap lab reports and prevent very important information to be handed to Portugal? THE CASE BECAME POLITICAL.... and this is the point which made the case passionate and highlighted many questions with a top one surrounding our heads all the time: WHY? Why a missing child made the top politicians from both countries so involved in the case? And don't tell me that it is because they want the case solved and they want the girl to be found? If this were their intention they will never let the case to be shelved, they will declare illegal the private detectives( in fact is that their condition in Portugal) and they will bring in the investigation, the most powerful police and will hire the most experienced polices from Europol and Interpol to do it, at the country taxes expenses and free for the Mccann's. REMEMBER, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPED COUNTRYS FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY WITH STRONG AND GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRYS IN THE WORLD. THE TWO COUNTRYS take part in very controversial and important decisions in the world, such is Iraq and Afg. war, terrorism fight, etc, etc. On the other side... there is more child's which still missing in UK and in Portugal. For which other child, the British government got so involved? NO ONE!!! And don't tell me that this is because no other parents fight for their child's so strongly then the Mccann's. All parents fight, probably more strongly and deep alone in the dark, out of the media, trying to force the police to follow all the tracks and keep their child case open and investigate for as much longer as they can. And most important, they feel frustrate and unhappy when they find the police his relaxing in the case. I would like to believe in something different but in fact, reviewing all the case, I just got one answer to Madeleine situation- She is dead, and an Excuse for all charade- There is a paedophile behaviour behind the case and did not came from strangers. The governments effort is to hide that paedophile chain, around and close to the girl. Because... Who Knows... if they let it to reach sunlight maybe some politicians will find their names involved on the same situation. A question always amazes me. Why that group always travel together with their child's if they don't spend holiday time with them and store the kids in nursery's, when there is a beach and sunlight with plenty of outdoor facilities WHICH ALL CHILDS ENJOY AND DESERVE???! AS a parent I can't imagine a holiday with my child's stored like that. Holidays is a time for yourself and for your child's, to enjoy a family time and give them moments to remain memorable all over their lives. THIS CHILDS HAD AN HOLIDAY MADE OF DAYS STORED IN A STRANGE ENVIRONMENT ( MUCH WORSE THEN BEEN AT THEIR OWN SCHOOLS) because they have to made new friends, meet a new teacher and follow straight rules ( very stressful, special if they were not used with school rules which is Maddie case) AND THEY HAD NIGHTS OF NIGHTMARES AND DEEP CRYING, alone most of the time. SHAME ON THE POLITICS WHICH DID NOT RESPECT CHILDS RIGHTS, AT ALL!!

I add my thanks to Joana, Astro and Kazlux and whoever else takes the time and trouble to translate from Portuguese to English for those of us who can only speak schoolgirl French! How many of us would be able to translate from English to Portuguese for them I wonder? And if we could, how many would take the time and trouble to do so?

No.13, and those who agree with him or her, should stop being so pompous and put their time and energy into what matters, namely, trying, if only through blogging, to bring to justice whoever was responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance.

Bridget, About dog evidences and how many alleles in the samples match Madeleine's DNA. In fact, if we analyse other cases were DNA was used as a prove, police never achieve 100% of matching alleles but this did not made any difference because an investigation is a pile of evidences which any one, "per Si" did not make any strong evidence, but all together indicate who is the author of the crime, where it happen, why and how? After that pile of evidences, which came out of the investigation, the next step is the court. The court trial play the most important rule in all crimes. Evidences have to be evaluated, checked or dismissed according with forensic experts, doctor experts and off-course "arguidos" and witnesses statements. THIS STEP WAS PREVENTED TO HAPEN in Maddie case, no matter the strong pile of evidences achieved by PJ and another evidence- THE MCCANN'S AND THEIR FRIENDS REFUSAL TO DO THE RECONSTRUTION OF THE CRIME NIGHT.

AFTER ALL... HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE BEHIND BARS now, guilt, based on the same forensic evidences which they find for Maddie case? How many cases, where the dogs play an issue, were re-opened and re-evaluated? And to be perverted, after all strange stories surrounding that case... CAN WE BELIEVE THE FSS REPORT? IS IT TRUE OR MANIPULATED TO BE UNCONCLUSIVE AND VERY CONVENNIENT? IT is so easy to manipulate lab results, special on public labs where the governments play a huge role and can frame employers just saying that they will loose the job if they insist on troubles or get a promotion if they do the job in a properly way ( properly means convenient, not correctly). I hope, PJ have some spare samples to analyse in more independent Labs. PJ is knowing in Portugal to act like rats and fill all the gaps in serious investigations. Normally is a very successful police, even in delicate cases. I just remember one which was amazing: THE "CABO COSTA", an ex-GNR which kill neighbours teenagers and concealed the bodies in a dam. Take more then 2 years, for PJ to solve the case, find the bodies and bring him to court. In middle time, he play with justice, lying, involving the family of some girls, because for all the neighbours he look like a normal man, very unsuspected. But since, part of the first body was found, the PJ got a small and strong evidence against him. Inside the body there was a small piece of a pen which the remain part was found inside the guy house. PJ remain silenced about what they find and try to get a confession of the crime, which did not happen. The strategy was to give a Mobile phone to the man. The clever man, which use to play games with police and has an unsuspected pass, committed an error... he call his son and told him that he knows where is the body of one of the girls. Solved!!! The call was used by the police to get a confession and locate the body. Some bodys have not been recovered because they went to the sea, some where only partially recovered. A shocked story which passionate the country. The police who was in charged of the investigation is now the head of PJ, replacing Alipio Ribeiro. He seems to be a not sleeping man, no matter if he is now, probably, under politic and PGR pressures. Politics will not rest forever and the Portuguese PM and PGR lost all the reputation at public eyes.

Mccann's FUND SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN UNTILL THEY GIVE AN EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR ABDUCTION THEORY AND CALL THE MEDIA FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD FOR A CONFERENCE WHERE THEY ANNOUNCE SUCH IMPORTANT ISSUE.

In MIDDLE TIME, THE FUND SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED TO SEE WHERE WENT THE MONEY AND ALL THE MONEY WHICH WAS NOT USED TO FIND THE GIRL, SHOULD BE FROZEN, INCLUDING PRIVATE DETECTIVES AND SPOKE PERSONS SALARIES. MONEY WHICH CAME FROM MEDIA INTERVIEWS OR sued NEWSPAPERS, SHOULD PAY TAXES. IF WE PAY TAXES FOR OUR SALARY, WHY THE MCCANN'S DID NOT?

I really don't like the English v. Portuguese stuff that's developing on here - I'd just like to say that without information originating in Portugal, and kindly translated by volunteers, I would have no clue what is going on with this case. This blog in particular has been very useful in keeping informed, especially since the demise of several other discussion forums. The English press is useless, to put it mildly, and I don't know enough Portuguese to read the Portuguese press.

And to the dreary individual known as Anon 13 - God bless Sr Amaral, and Madeleine is a little angel. ;)

Post71. The probability that it was dead Madeleine the dogs alerted to is fairly conclusive because nobody else was missing and it was checked that nobody else died in that apartment nor in that vehicle. Also, who died with CuddleKat then?

The first language every foreigner is obliged to learn at school is English, specially in the West countries of Europe.There are excellent diccionaries and excellent translators everywhere.The used language in conferences, congresses, medical world is also English.Rubish to talk about bad translations.

Amen Trismegistus Well said!! We truly appreciate everyone especially our Potuguese friends - where would we be without you guys??? You do a FANTASTIC job on a daily basis "Well Done!!!" Seconded... "God bless Sr Amaral, and Madeleine is a little angel."

we are the ordinary people of the world . It's our rulers who cause the trouble . 30 percent of the world's populaton are the ruling class . 70 percent of the world's population are ordinary people .

The ruling class have a divide and rule policy that has worked successfully fot them for thousands of years in order for them to get on with their buisness of controlling us . For goodness sake people wake up and realise that we are playing their game unwittingly , by fighting amongst one and other . The ruling class are laughing their socks off . Divide and rule works for them not us .

63, you live in Birmingham, that is good news.Perhaps more people know about the McCanns, people known by the Gaspars.It would be a good idea to give blogs'addresses to the Gaspars.They can follow what is happening right now.Could you please try?Thank you!

Digressing.A thought as crossed my mind and i just wonder if it could be possible.To this day we know nothing of Madeleines background and the pregnancy that Kate went through.We have heard accounts that as a couple they were having difficulty conceiving.I to this day, still cannot buy into them been the biological parents and have seen nothing that confirms either are.To me this should have been simple to determine and cannot understand why medical records, dna samples etc are surrounded with such confusion.I am also concerned in how the American angle was involved at such an early stage, we know that Christopher Meyer had made initial contact through the British Embassy in Washington ( I believe within 48hrs of the dissapearence).Why has the head of the PCC did he not go through the British Embassy in portugal directly??I Cannot understand why such a route can anybody enlighten me? Could it be possible Madeleine is adopted from America??I believe David Millibands two sons are and it would explain the help from the foreign office along with the possibilty that any medical records are still held in the states??Any thoughts about this?

I can speak from personal experience regarding lies which are encouraged in some of the so called main stream British Press and TV news reports,in an attempt to vilify and gag anyone who may have a difference of opinion, based upon the available evidence.

Before the mischief makers on here try to spin this, as something written by Tony Bennett my name is Grenville Green

I think it would be a good idea if people took a little time to reflect upon the facts of this case, and we all agree that we are not here to score points against each other, because there is a danger of this all becoming very adversarial if we don't.

Anonymous #13 - I actually think you make some useful points, although I think your comments about the standard of translation were somewhat ungracious to say the least. I don't know how perfect a translation they are, because I can't do any better, but I do know I am very grateful to all those who translate articles on here. Without your sterling efforts, I would have been completely clueless, and vastly less well-informed. So, thank you.

However, I think it is worth reading post #13 again. The author certainly does not appear to be pro-McCann to me. Far from it.

Many blogs and forums in the past harmed their own credibility by indulging in wild speculation and hypothesizing about this case. I would hate to see the same thing happen again. And I do see it starting. I also don't see why we can't hold differing views without feeling the need to rubbish opinions with which we do not agree. For example, Anon post #58 takes issue with something said in post #56, objecting to them saying ''Let's say she was abducted.....'' and insists '' She wasn't. She is dead so don't bother trying it on''

Now, I thought we were all working towards a common goal here ? We won't get there like that.

Here are some of my personal opinions :I don't believe the conclusions of the Forensic service who analysed the samples was in any way influenced by political considerations, and I think some of the criticism of them comes about because people either haven't read the reports from the file, or do not understand the conclusions.

I think the failure of the case to proceed to charges and ultimately to a court is because there simply is not enough weight of evidence to be able to prove a case. Simple as that. The only evidence is circumstantial, and for a case to succeed on circumstancial evidence alone requires that there be lots of circumstantial evidence. Suspicion alone is simply not enough.

I, like poster #13 , do despair at times at the constant assertions that the McCann's are about to be 'found out' at any second, just as it used to drive me up the wall to read that ''The PJ have played a blinder'' which was another overused and rather desperate interpretation of the fact that the PJ were actually up against a brick wall. Likewise, claims of masonic involvement, friends in high places, government interference.......................all distractions, in my opinion.

Again, this is only my personal opinion, but I do not believe that there will be a resolution to this case unless and until there is some new evidence. As I have stated before, the McCanns cannot simultaneously state that they know what happened to her, and that she was abducted. If she was abducted, it was while they were not present - we know this because they keep telling us how much they regret not being there at the precise moment someone made off with her. Hence, they couldn't know what happened, could they ?

This is the reason why the reconstruction was so important - to test out whether the timeline hung together. Because if it didn't, then the only piece of evidence that Madeleine was abducted - namely the statement of Jane Tanner about the man she saw - may have proven to be irrelevant.

Anyway, I digress. Can't we air differing views without needing to snipe at those with whom we do not wholeheartedly agree ?

Post #96 - I understand what you are saying, but I obviously haven't got the point across properly.

A cadaver dog alerting to a scent is an indication. Without the subsequent discovery of remains associated with that alert, the alert itself cannot stand alone as evidence

Without something identifiable, it is not possible to state with certainty whose remains the dog is signalling.

Therefore in terms of what the PJ had from the dog evidence, it gave them a very strong indication that a death had taken place in the apartment, and as everyone bar Madeleine was present and correct, it would be quite reasonable to assume that the death may have been hers. It could therefore point towards further lines of inquiry, but as standalone evidence, without other corroborating circumstantial or actual evidence, it was always going to be unlikely that it was enough for the authorities to proceed with charges.

The request for Detective Sergeant de Freitas to testify in Lisbon caused uproar on a comical scale in the UK. First off, Scotland Yard began frothing at the mouth at the idea of one of their officers testifying on operational questions, pointing out, quite correctly, that such information belongs to the force itself, not the officer.

The Yard reports directly to the Home Office, that dumping ground for inadequate politicians and refuge for a certain mule-like bureaucratic mind set. Traditionally it has dealt with the anus end of government – executing or reprieving criminals, banning undesirables such as the late Lenny Bruce, running lunatic asylums, seizing dirty books like Joyce’s Ulysses and attempting every few years to clean out the crooked detectives who have always infested the Yard.

Very hot on British interests is the HO, though, which dealt, at snail-like pace, with the rogatory letters concerning the Tapas 7. Not only did it share the horror of the cops but it nearly had a collective aneurism at the idea of a possible subpoena from an overseas state being accepted by the UK: acting on it would, as the perspiring Sir Humphreys pointed out, lead to a loss of UK sovereignty. Ahgh!

And finally the Leicester Police nearly burst their uniform buttons with disbelief and indignation when they got wind of the affair: they hadn’t fought to exclude their activities from the Portuguese case file release in order to have them highlighted via the back door of a civil courtroom, as they made very clear.

Poor Detective Sergeant de Freitas never had a chance. But of course it was his decision not to go. He was on leave, you see. Posted by john blacksmith at 05:04

The majority of people who post here do so because they support Sr Amaral and his efforts to get the truth out.

If you and Anon 13, want to come here and want to try a bit of muddying the water with 'let's suppose Madeleline was abducted after all' then I can see this site going the same way as the MF and the 3As.

The entire tactics of the pro McCanns recently has been to try and post as anti McCanns, yet slip in comments hoping to lead people away from their belief in the death of Madeleine.

At this time it is very important that we stay strong and united behind Sr Amaral.

And, if he is saying that Madeleine is dead, then he should know. He was the investigator on the case and he knows a lot more than we do.

If he says he knows Madeleine is dead, then who are we, who support him, to disagree.

I think people will be very foolish to feed people like you and Anon 13.

Perhaps you and Anon 13 should start your own 'we doubt that Madeleine is dead site'. I'm sure it wont be long before you attract lots of pro McCann supporters.

Anon 13 and 55 is me. Thanks Bridget for your level heading reading of my posts. I have apologised for any ungraciousness on my part. I have also tried to post several other comments and they have not been published. Why Joana? No free speech here? Or merely a technical glitch? I;ve always had the highest respect for you so I do hope that there is no censorship here.We are not muddying the water we are trying to find out what happened without hysteria.

I don't doubt Madeleine is dead. If anything I'm an 'anti'. It seems even so much as looking at the other side induces apoplexy here... which isn't good for the credibility of people who question the McCanns story. Not good for the 'movement'...

Anon 95: as the dreary individual 13 and 55 (some of my other comments were not published) I must say your last remark made me laugh!

I guess the thing that does really bother me is the subservience of the Portuguese authorities here.Why? Is this pure corruption or some kind of inferiority complex?I don't think other nations would have let the McCanns get away with this.I don't understand the behaviour of the British press either. I've met several British journalists that cover this story, have met the McCanns and to a man, they all believe them! Honestly!My gut instinct from the beginning was that there was something fishy about the McCanns story and the whitewash in the press was very frustrating to read.I am grateful to this blog, whatever you may think, it is now the primary source of information of the McCann case.Re Amarals book. It was a probability that he would get sued, so perhaps it would have been good to say everything he knows, illegal or not.

Anon 110 - Bridget and Anon 13 are hardly `muddying the water` - the opposite in fact - they are clarifying waters that have been muddied by an army of subjective emotions. I have seen posters with the `lynch mob mentality` and, conversely, posters with the `blind loyalty` mentality and it does nothing for TRUTH.

We need posters who play devil`s advocate to keep us all level headed and on the straight and narrow. We need intelligent posters with analytical, clear minds. And they have in no way indicated that they doubt Madeleine is dead or that they are pro-McCann supporters.

Remember - none of us actually know what happened. Thats why we need minds that question.

Apologies for diverging from the current topic, but does anyone know what became of Brian Johnson´s much heralded book in support of Amaral,'Faked Abduction', which was going to be ready for Christmas?

Was there ever such a case as this for false leads, unanswered questions, people who were not what they claimed to be and interesting developments that just disappeared into the ether?

I believe Madeleine is dead !I believe there are many within their circle who know she is! ( just not how it happened...more likely an explained version to get them on side for such a COVER UP to commence)I believe the offical instituions in the UK and Portugal know it !I believe there are sections of people who have been duped ...unable to believe anything sinister could be commited by such people of their standing and rather than speak out have chosen to stay tight lipped.I believe the evidence is already there to prove the Death in a court of Law but it is been surpressed in some instances... and has been CORRUPTED in others.I Dont believe the FSS have acted correctly in this case.I believe that the only area of uncertainity is how she died accidental/deliberate/through negligence

The intriguing aspect is that "accidental" is mentioned as possible, but I suspect this was a tactic early on to get an admission of her death first...then the pressure would have begun to establish HOW!

It is strange that if the accidental option is considered the most likely scenario, then why Focus on kate and not them both !There is no doubt she was the focus of more intense investigating....why?It would also not explain why the cadaver dissapeared and has not been found, an accidental death where the body has to be moved doesnt make sense at all, other than the worry of sedatives been found in autopsy...which would to me say it couldnt be accidental if a child as sedatives found that it should not.

I believe that unknowing to the Mccanns all we are waiting for is the establishments that have supported them to re-position thereselves for when it breaks ...Damage Limitation.I can sense this is happening.

I believe this whole case to be a Huge Scandal and many people are scared stiff of the truth emerging.

So Gerry you are right about one thing....i wouldn't be looking for a Live child because i Believe she is Dead.

With IVF, there are usually many more than one embryo created and they are then stored until used.

Sometimes, if there are quite a few of them, I think some of them may be implanted into another woman who may use them from necessity), rather than they be destroyed. (Though, I am no expert on this, so if somebody is, please correct this.)

Those that aren't used will eventually be destroyed.

I think it is the destruction of the embryos which is a big no no for the Catholic Church, and therefore they are against IVF as they believe it is the destruction of a life.

IF they are able to be used by more than one woman, then the possibilty of parentage could be confused.

yes a Huge question mark....which is crazy !If an abduction scenario was to be investigated it is the FIRST thing that should have been established that both are the biological parents.I believe where abductions do happen...alot of the time it is a biological parent taking them.So it would need to be established and ruled out as a first line of inquiry.When they were in the states for the age progression pictures ...i couldnt help but cringe when Gerry spoke about a good mix of genetics.It seemed forced.It felt very uncomfortable...take another look at the video.

To Anonymous # 110. I suggest that you read posts 71,77,106 and 107 by Bridget. Read them slowly and carefully and you will see that what she is posting IS Not a "Muddying of the waters"-----but far from it is attempting to define the problems which the P.J. and the Prosecution faced and still face ! Of course the child is dead, of course the Dreadful McCanns are to blame,of course there was NO ABDUCTION. Should you follow my advice to read the above postings,you will see that they are a "Forensic analysis" of the facts. Supporting Sr.Amaral at this difficult time. I also have followed this case from day one,within three days of the childs "Disappearance", I became convinced that beyond any doubt that the parents were the culprits. I originally thought that the McCanns reason for trying to rubbish the dogs results was simply to escape the blame for whatever had happened to her,but I feel that they have a deeper and more cynical motive. If the dogs reactions had been proven correct,then the child was dead,and any justification for a "Find Madeleine Fund" ended. Finally, having read your post about "Pro McCann Supporters" I realise that old saying about "If brains were dynamite" ------you would'nt have sufficient to raise the peak of your cap !

I only tried to say Mr Amaral gave Mccanns an opportunity to react. The case had not enough evidence to take them to court so they use their right to protect their reputation and they will use it as long as they can, that is : as long as they are not found guilty.

post #106 said "Here are some of my personal opinions :I don't believe the conclusions of the Forensic service who analysed the samples was in any way influenced by political considerations ..." and why not?

Slightly off topic, but the issue of Sr Amaral's defence fund is relevant to all our discussions on here. Those of us who have contributed have received thank you emails, apparently from the great man himself. Would it also be possible for donors to be told how the fund is progressing? I completely understand that this information should not be in the public domain, but I think it would be encouraging for his supporters to know how it is going. In the meantime, folks, please send a donation if you can - it is so important that Amaral should be able to embark on any action necessary without jeopardising his own family's future any more than has already happened. And anyone who knows a philanthropic millionaire with a highly developed sense of justice, just point them in this direction!

post 44 Jane Hill of the BBC reported on 7.9.07. that early (Portuguese?) forensic tests on what seemed to be cerebral fluid gave indications that M had died from a broken neck, fractured skull, or a broken larynx. Sousa also commented on the mist of blood sparay.On a separate issue, on previous posts I expressed doubt that Freitas, who handed over DNA samples, would be allowed to attend. No suprises there then!

On 15.11.07.,a solicitor acting for one of the Tapas group who wanted to change their story commented that the police enquiry was becoming increasingly politicised. He alleged that the McC's received more than normal help, which was prejudicial to the client represented.(EL MUNDO)

@ post #122, thanks for bringing that up. That El Mundo report has never properly been explained. Clarence Mitchel tried to spin it at the time. I believe the report had truth in it. I just can't understand why something like that will be made up even with all the lies the McCanns and their friends have told!

Nowhere have I suggested that I believe for a second that Madeleine was abducted, and I doubt that anyone who reads my posts on here can ever have arrived at that conclusion.

I don't know who you are, but I suggest you go back and read my posts again. If you can't get your head around the fact that I am trying to explain that a positive indication by a cadaver dog is not accepted as evidence on it's own then you are not reading it properly.

Your insinuation that I am some sort of agent provocateur is offensive in the extreme. I really do not understand why you think I have suggested that Madeleine was actually abducted, or that I don't believe her to be dead. Perhaps you would care to illustrate by providing appropriate quotes where I have indicated anything of the kind.

You really must try to understand the difference between belief, opinion and evidence. I am completely supportive of Dr Amaral, and I have my own opinion on what I think happened to Madeleine, but you are not providing a logical argument here. You are completely wrong in your assessment.

Go back. Read it again. Try to understand this time.

More importantly, try to resist the temptation to grandstand and tell others how they ought to think, would you ? It's awfully patronizing

i dont think its helping in using anon Just yesterday a poster suspected me of being gerry but if he could have remembered just one of my many posts (going back to d.express) then both he and i would have saved time Today 111 said hey 13 55 is me ...and could have followed by ....see the reply 34 gave to 78 to which i replied as 96 clarifying everything.. for myself if you refer to me just call me fred

Why did the McCanns never say that they visited Sagres on April 30th when they gave accounts of their movements that week? I think GM said they all ate at the Payne's apartment that day, but other Tapas group statements seem to contradict this.

Poster 119 ,I agree with all you say ,but just reading through all this something has struck me ,The powers that be who have covered and lied to save GM/KH Necks have also got Maddies blood on their hands ,How do they sleep at night ?How could ANYONE Kates Mother /Gerry sister ,protect and cover for them ?where is their love and loyalty to this little girl ?

128: very interesting, even though I research and read everything I can on this case there are still so many things I don't know.I am 13,55, 111, and Gerry and Spartacus!Some of you lot are right silly billys.

I think much of the McCanns' inexplicable behaviour and arrogance can be explained quite easily; everything they say and do fits into the profile of a sociopath: they have no feelings or empathy and their whole pattern of behaviour is based on mimicry which sociopaths become adept at since they start to practise when they are small children. But they can't always mimic normal people perfectly, especially in stressful situation, e.g. going to bed at 3.oo on the night, Jerry having a good laugh a few days later and Kate's visit to the hairdresser and being able to dress so nicely for the camara's without a hair out of place. The problem with sociopaths is that they have no sense of guilt or even awareness that they are abnormal, and typically they care about nobody but themselves, which of course was a tradedy for Madaline.

Post 110 has a point. It is a classic strategy for pros to infiltrate pleasantly posing as antis, but gradually and almost imperceptably to introduce the idea that MBM was abducted or the dogs were not conclusive. Classic covert pro strategy, but as Bridget isn't saying that, what is she saying? It seems just a distraction to say that much evidence is circumstantial, and more evidence is desirable. I'm sure there is more evidence which hasn't been published yet. The more important point is that the police investigation had a clear direction based on the evidence and was cut short too soon. I believe it will be re-opened.

Anonymous #110 and #134. You appear to have "A bee in your bonnet" about Anonymous #13. What in particular is "Pro McCann Tosh" ? I must say that some of his thinking appears muddled, but does that mean that he is pro McCann ? Or do you see Spies and Traitors at every turn ? There is a real danger of our joint concern for justice for Madeleine and Sr.Amaral becoming an obsession leading us to lose our objectivity. Dont be Spooked by shadows !

@ Anonymous 112:"I guess the thing that does really bother me is the subservience of the Portuguese authorities here.Why? Is this pure corruption or some kind of inferiority complex?I don't think other nations would have let the McCanns get away with this".

112 I totally agree with you here. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I can't help thinking that if Madeleine had gone missing in.. say Germany (many other European countries come to mind) things would have been very different.. From the very beginning the Portuguese authorities have behaved in this case in a subservient way in the face of the "powerful" foreign visitor, backed up by their "powerful" country, and right to the end they have bent backwards to accommodate both the foreigners and their country of origin.. Why, for instance, right at the beginning did they accommodate the requirements of the British Ambassador? Why didn't they tell him to mind his own business and not to interfere in a police investigation? Why did they let the Mc's flee Portugal as soon as they were made arguidos? Why didn't they INSIST on the reconstruction? etc. etc.It is about time that the Portuguese judiciary and the Portuguese authorities stop behaving like if they are in a Third World country, because you are not. You are nor more nor less than any other EU country. And they should behave as such.

yes, the weather could be a problem next week.Not in Portugal but in the UK.Whole Europe is in difficulties, mountains of snow everywhere.But one week could make a big difference.Let us hope that the McCanns are coming to Lisbon and to Algarve again.We will greet them at the airport.

''post #106 said "Here are some of my personal opinions :I don't believe the conclusions of the Forensic service who analysed the samples was in any way influenced by political considerations ..." and why not?''

Having read the service reports from the FSS to the PJ, I fail to understand where there is any evidence of political considerations. Perhaps you could specify where and how you think such an influence is evident ?

It seems to me from the reports in the case files that the small size or poor quality of the samples was the major issue, together with the fact that it complicates the process of trying to positively identify a profile belonging specifically to Madeleine in an environment which also contains DNA from both her parents.

For the person who asked the question about the paternity issue, this is also covered in the case files, and it was quite clear that Madeleine was Gerry's child.

Everything should not revolve around what two negligent parents and their stooges want. This attempted humiliation of a man with INTEGRITY and his family is disgraceful.

Should "The Truth of the Lie" be translated into ENGLISH. Profits from the sale of the book along with public donations could help Goncola Amaral take care of expensive business, where the McCanns,lawyers and the gutter press is concerned.

I believe the fear of a factual English translation and the fact the book had been selling well is the reason the McCanns and their backers, who ever they are, are trying to destroy an honest man.

Amaral was kind enough not to write the rest of the statement of Mrs. Gaspar on the book. On the book we can clearly read about Payne but also clearly read that Gerry did not get angry with his best friend, after he had made obscene gestes towards(probably) Madeleine, when she was still 2.5 years old.And the McCanns continued being friends with the Paynes.And they still are.On the official files we can read what Mrs. Gaspar says and suspects about Gerry.I agree that is the reason why the McCanns want to forbid the book.

One thing at a time, shall we?You are disappointed in the translations from Portuguese to English as you do not find them to be accurate? If your knowledge of Portuguese is non existent, little or lacking, I find it strange that you understand the translations to be inaccurate? How did you determine this? You say the translations are not done by someone with English as a ‘mother tongue?’ I had to laugh at that. If English IS the mother tongue, that would suggest that Portuguese language is then a second, third language, how does either scenario dictate that any translation would not be accurate? How absurd a thought!

I’m not saying that you may have read articles which you believe are not translated accurately or were in fact not translated accurately, but the reason you give.......

Granted you may not have wished to cause offence, but it really was an unnecessary remark to make.

As for this case being frustrating? Indeed it is. For anyone at all, the public, law enforcement it is frustrating. Not least due to the fact that the parents of the missing child appear to spend more time and effort dealing with matters not directly related to endeavourimg to discover the missing child alive, her body if dead, or discovering how she came to have vanished without trace. They are rather more concerned with self preservation! Their friend Jon Corner told them this in the early days – ‘that the case would become more about them than Madeleine.’

Never a truer word has been spoken since the child disappeared. How well Jon Corner, Madeleine’s godfather knows Kate and Gerry McCann.

Perhaps most frustrating of all is the fact that the parents appear to have no desire whatsoever to have this case re-opened.

As Joana has detailed for us (Comment no. 8) the McCann parents had several routes which they could have gone down to do so. They chose, yes ‘chose’ not to? Parents who do not want an official police investigation into the mysterious disappearance of their daughter to continue?

Now for loving parents there would have to been one hell of a reason for not wanting your daughter found, or the nature of how she came to be missing to be discovered. Don’t you agree?

One might think that the only reason any parent would behave in this way, is because they were involved in some way in the disappearance. I cannot think of any other reason.

Imagine next Monday,Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday it will heavily snow in Lisbon, something that never happens, aiport closed, people falling down on the streets?Isabel Duarte will break her legs and arms, hungry wolfs will attack the population?

“I can understand their reluctance to reopen the Portuguese investigation. Why would they want to be arrested? How would that help their remaining children?--It would help Madeleine if she is alive!

Isn’t that reason enough?

Now as the McCann’s believe that Madeleine is alive, it really is not a question of helping their ‘remaining’ children. They believe they have three children who are alive and well. All three children therefore require ‘help.’ Madeleine most of all, unless of course the McCann’s know otherwise?

If you are referring to the children who remain living with them at home in Rothely, well clearly, MML if these children, Sean and Amelie, if we believe Kate and Gerry McCann, that on a daily basis these two youngsters miss and ask where Madeleine is, then for their sake on this basis alone, it would be of great help if their parents co-operated and did all in their power to have the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance re-opened.

The McCann’s in their legal actions, site that the actions are on behalf of Madeleine, Sean and Amelie. Rather begs the question, why they cannot for the very same reason - ‘for Madeleine, Sean and Amelie,’ ask for the case to be re-opened.

Interestingly, you state:

“Why would they want to be arrested?”

The obvious answer to that is that no one in their right mind would WANT to be arrested for any reason.

That aside, what a curious thing to say! Do you feel that they would be arrested? If so,why?

Do you have reason to believe that an arrest is imminent? The McCann’s together visited Portugal recently – should the Portuguese have wished to make any charges or arrests, it might just have been a good time to do so.

The ridiculous notion that the McCann’s have spun and spread, that they were being ‘set-up’ by the Portuguese police, is the only reason I can think that would lead you to conclude that they may be arrested, unless of course you are of the opinion that there is evidence enough for them to be charged with crimes against Madeleine, and or her brother and sister.

Now just for a moment MML let’s look at the possibility that the McCann’s are in some way involved – How does it help the twins Sean and Amelie to be raised by parents who played a part in the demise of the sister whom we are told, they loved and adored and miss each and every day?

If they are innocent of any involvement whatsoever, bear in mind, Clarence Mitchell has stated that there is an INNOCENT EXPLANATION, for any information/evidence/material which the police have or may find- So no need to fret over the possibility of being arrested and charged then eh? Or, even if they are, they only have to produce their innocent explanations – Why oh why then would they not return, to Portugal, agree to a criminal reconstruction of the events of that evening, answer all questions which they refused to previously, and in so doing, allow the case to be re-opened?

No real answer to that MML, except that there is something being hidden!

That is the TRUTH of matters – there have been many lies, discrepancies in statements.

Lies are told MML for a reason, and one reason only – to cover, conceal something. You ask if it they told ‘big’ lies or ‘small lies?

When the issue is something as serious as that of your missing child – no lies should have been told! Any lie, further endangered the life of this child if she was abducted, if not, and there was an accident whereby the child died in 5A, their lies can only have been to conceal the true events. Any lie, which prevented, hindered the official police investigation, harmed the child further, was a whacking great huge lie, an injustice to this child, a travesty.

You see they did not only ‘fudge’ the timeline as you suggest, to portray to the world that they were not neglectful parents, it is more than this.

Those damn doors, just like the damn dogs – well they tell another story entirely!

You see that patio door being unlocked we are told was for the purpose of Madeleine to leave if she wanted to go and look for her parents. Do you really believe that? More likely that the story was dreamt up, a contingency plan if you like, if the jemmying of the window and shutter story wasn’t believed. As this was proved not to be true, well that abductor had to gain entry somehow – how better than to have entered by an unlocked door?

In early days before all of this information came to light, we DID think they had merely fudged the timeline to protect their reputations, but as more and more information hit the public domain, it was clear to all that there was a whole lot more going on – unlocked patio doors to allow a three year old child to wander in her jimjams in the dead of night in pursuit of her parents? Don’t think MML that anyone ‘buys’ that one!

If anyone does, and they believe this to be true, it follows that those who do must also conclude that the McCann’s are guilty of abandonment – leaving three vulnerable minor children in a dangerous environment, providing opportunity for anyone who cared to, to enter the apartment and harm their children.

This to me is a great fat lie!

Find the reason for it, and you find what happened to Madeleine that night.

Take a look at the ‘crying incident’ MML.

McCann’s tell us it was nothing. That Madeleine wasn’t upset at having woken and cried? A bit of a contradiction don’t you agree? Their children were awake and crying for their mummy and daddy, but they were not upset? Sorry, I cannot figure that one out!

More importantly though is that Kate McCann states she did NOT think any more of this until Madeleine disappeared.

She then felt it WAS significant, as it may have meant that an intruder had been in the apartment the evening prior to the disappearance, and frightened the children, making them cry. So told the police ‘in confidence.’

It is not true that she did NOT give this any more thought:-

1. She DID think about this again, as we are told she announced this at the dinner table that evening to her tapas friends.

2. She and Gerry discussed it and decided to increase the frequency of checks, AND to leave the AND to leave the patio door unlocked so that the child if upset was able to get out to look for her parents.

3. Clarence Mitchell stated that Kate and Gerry said it was NOT possible that the children had cried as on their 'half hourly' checks they had always found the children to be asleep.

4. Clarence also stated that Rachel Oldfield was in her apartment, in the bedroom adjacent to the McCann children’s and there was no sound from Apt 5a. No crying whatsoever. R. Oldfield would have heard if there had been.

One has to ask, if the McCann’s believe it impossible for the children to have cried, as they were always asleep when they checked on them (the story fed to the press) and also due to Rachel Oldfield saying she did not hear any crying - why was the story they gave to the Portuguese police so different? Telling the police that they thought someone may have been in the apartment and frightened their children making them cry?

Surely if someone had been in the apartment and frightened the children, there would, be every likelihood that the children would not have settled back into a sleep before the parents arrived to do the next check, and Oldfield WOULD have heard them?

Was that not the argument in the FIRST statement made - that Oldfield WOULD have heard any crying?

Surely if someone had been in the apartment and frightened the children, there would, be every likelihood that the children would not have settled back into a sleep before the parents arrived to do the next check, and Oldfield would have heard them?

Doesn’t make sense for the McCann’s to state, on one hand, if there had NOT been an intruder, then the children slept right through. If there had been an intruder, then they woke and cried? How convenient!

We have to conclude that whether there WAS or WAS NOT an intruder on the 2nd May 2007 – Rachel Oldfield heard not a sound.If the McCann’s in their first statement (Clarence being the mouthpiece for same) tell us that Rachel Oldfield did not hear anything, which led them to think that Madeleine had not cried, then we must apply the same logic in respect of any alleged intruder. Surely if an intruder had made the children cry, Oldfield would have heard their cries? She didn’t! So that rather blows that theory out of the water!They cannot have it both ways.

One must point out also, that the McCann’s have stated that on their checks they did not, apart from the night of the 3rd May, the night Madeleine disappeared, do visual checks on their children, they merely listened. If on the 2nd May they did not look in on their children, how can they have been sure that the children had not cried, been out of bed. How could they even be sure if their children were in the room at all, if they did not bother to look, let alone reach a conclusion that the children had not cried?They spoke of mimicking a ‘listening service’ on offer at other holiday resorts NOT I must add available at the OC in Portugal.But why would parents mimic a ‘listening service’ when they could access their children? Unlike staff performing listening service at resorts, parents do have a key to enter. So that makes no sense. That and the fact that they tell us they left the patio door unlocked. Why would any parent not do a visual check of their children? Before you retire for the night, parents look in on their children, it is a natural thing to do.Why if they themselves did not do visual checks of their children would they ask Matt Oldfield to enter the apartment and do so? If he was simply to listen, why was he over at the bedroom door peering in, when Kate and Gerry did not normally do this?I doubt Oldfield was ever in that apartment!

Therein ‘lies’ the many problems MML. They have told so many tales, lies, so many discrepancies, so many cover-ups by Clarence Mitchell, so many stories in the press ‘shaped’ by Clarence as he recently stated at a conference in respect of the Madeleine case, that the truth has been made much more difficult to get at.

What makes parents of a missing child allow for stories to be shaped to suit their needs?

What makes parents of a missing child not co-operate fully with the official police investigation?

What makes parents of a missing child tell lies, hindering the investigation?

What makes parents of a missing child, not exercise their right to have the now shelved case re-opened?

What makes parents of a missing child of all things – state on one hand that their daughter was NOT upset when she told them she and her brother had cried, and dismissing what the child had told them, to then go on to suggest that perhaps an abductor had been in the apartment and frightened her?

They said the child was not upset at all and laughed after saying this skipping off to play. She certainly hadn’t been frightened by an intruder then had she? else she would not have skipped off to play?

You also say MML:

“People can justify any behaviour: their continued efforts to keep themselves in the limelight may be down to feeling that they can 'give back' to the world, repay their sins even, by highlighting the whole issue of child protection.”

----

The world didn't and don't need to be told of Child Protection by the McCann's of all people. I think you will find that most already know a great deal in this regard.

The McCann's don't owe the world anything, or need to 'give back'to the world. They do OWE Madeleine. They owe Sean and Amelie and all their extended family. They allowed Madeleine, Sean and Amelies lives to be destroyed, Madeleine’s to a much greater and graver extent, and have not taken advantage of every opportunity to, as far as possible, do everything in their power to make amends, to gie back. How do they 'give back' to Madeleine what they have taken from her? The time they spend in the ‘limelight’ if it is as you say ‘to give back to the world’ would be better spent co-operating with police authorities. The world can wait, Madeleine if alive has not that luxury!

As for repaying their sins? Which sins would that be? Neglecting the children, or something more?

It is not for the McCann’s if they have sinned, to decide on the punishment. It is for a Court of Law to do so. It is to their God they have to look for forgiveness.

You ask:-

“Amaral is dropping hints about Madeleine's health. I hope he has some solid evidence to back this up. And if he does, why didn't he put it in the book? Why didn't he put everything into the book in fact? If you are going to write a book you may as well give all the evidence. Go for broke. What was he waiting for?”---

It is a wise man who does not put all of his eggs in one basket!

With the same token, one might ask, Why do the McCann’s not go for broke? If they are going to tell us that there was an abduction, they, as you say of Sr Amaral - ‘may as well give all the evidence’ that is the evidence which leads them to believe this. Wht are they waiting for? So far MML, we have not heard anything at all to support their abduction theory! They are no longer arguido, they are free to speak.

You continue:’

“Also for the most part, professional journalists or lawyers are not writing about this case, we are reliant on amateur sleuths. Still, this is better than nothing.

It would be better if all commenters stuck to the facts.”---

Well, as for professional journalists or lawyers not writing about this case. They are actually, just not writing what they know to be the truth. They are writing little for fear of being sued.

What is written here in the UK is ‘shaped’ by Clarence Mitchell.

Aren't we so lucky to have news from Portugal translated and brought to us courtesy of Joana, Astro and Kazlux?

You say you would like those those commenting to stick to facts?

Unfortunately when discussing, whether there be many or few facts, other elements have to be included.

Of course, I agree it would be better not to hear the 'fairy tales’ such as those which Clarence Mitchell tends to relate, compliments of Team McCann, a downside of this particular case.

You say this MML and then go on to give YOUR slant on matters from your position as amateur sleuth, which is not if you don’t mind me pointing out ..... entirely factual!

It seems only Bridget and 145 truly understand what I'm trying to express.A.MIller, I admire your analytical mind, but you seem to misunderstand my points. I suppose what I have been trying to do since the beginning is explore what is going on in the McCanns heads. The lengths to which people will go to justify their behaviour is always interesting. Very few people think they are in the wrong even when (or if) they are guilty of murder or manslaughter of their child. How are the McCanns sustaining themselves psychologically? I find this fascinating.As for the translation, I got a bit confused with what you are trying to say. Let me be clearer: I'm not saying the translations are innaccurate, I'm saying that often the English that they are written in is clearly not someone with a mother tongue. It would make easier reading if they were. Is there anybody with English as a mother tongue on Joana's team?I do not speak Portuguese but I do speak Spanish and French and have done translating work so I do have an inkling of what I'm talking about.I think the McCanns are guilty. I am not a pro-mccann. I find it slightly disturbing that some of the commenters here can come up with these conclusions from my writings. It's important to keep an open mind. At the end of the day there is so much information that we don't know...from both sides.Ive been reading this site for 2 years and rarely comment. I guess I should stick to that in future and keep silent.MMLMML

"The Silence of the Lambs", or the silence of the twins. I have always noticed this.

Children that age can be asked things like "Did a strange man come into your bedroom?" "Was Madeleine lifted out of bed?" "Did you hear a noise?"Or, more to the point, "Was there a terrible row in the living room?"

The twins slept throughout the crowd of people entering the apartment - the PJ officers commented on their sleeping throughout it all. They were moved to another apartment ( the Oldfields???) and apparently kept sleeping. They then disappear from the story completely. In the photos of the panic airtrip back to England, Sean seems comatose over Gerry's shoulder and Amelie, although awake, is clutched tight by Kate. In my travelling through airports I have never seen a child asleep, except tiny babies - it is all so interesting for children to see.The twins were THERE when it happened - or didn't happen.

MML. I don´t know why you were accused of complaining about the inaccuracy of the translations when you never used that word. Anyone with the slightest linguistic understanding knows that what you translate into your native language is always going to be clearer and easier to read than what you try to express in a foreign language. I´m sure the superb translators on this site would not disagree with this.

But hey, we all know the English are rubbish at languages, and Portuguese speakers among us are a bit thin on the ground, so it´s just fortunate for our knowledge of what´s going on in this case that so many Portuguese have such good English and let´s be thankful. Imagine if we had to rely on the gobbledegook that is Google

I have been an avid reader of the Mirror site, 3 Arguidos and this one (always violently anti-McCann I hasten to add), but also comment rarely. All these sites end up the same way. Best to keep your head below the parapet - too many snipers around.

To post 149 -see 2615-2616-PJ files. Report received from Stuart Prior LP on 4th Sept. 07."In some of these samples, DNA was found whose components are also found in the profile of MM. With respect to the trace evidence recovered behind the sofa,ALL (my capitalisation)the confirmed DNA components coincide with the corresponding components of the DNA profile of MM.In the sample collected in the boot area of the vehicle 15 of the identified DNA components coincide with the corresponding components of the DNA profile of MM, this having 19 components.Sent to Inspector Jao Carlos.

Mr Amaral knows the content of Gerry's 14 text messages, whose existence was intially denied by GM. Will they reveal anything about why he visited Sagres on the 29th or 30th, according to different newspaper reports. Can this be one of the keys to the case?

There is absolutely no reason for you not to post your thoughts and opinions on this case. I'm sure Joana and the team welcome all perspectives and viewpoints. Whenever any of us post on whatever site, there is always the chance that some will not agree with our opinion and voice this. I have found, most often (not on this site) that this is done in the most rude of ways, using language not fit for print. I don't let it deter me, the way I see it, is if others have to resort to this, then they have no concrete argument to make. They are lost. If I had £1 for every time I have been 'shot down' for something on which I have voiced opinion on other sites, I would be so very wealthy. I don't let anyone deter me. Why should I? Why should you MML?

Anonymous Comment 168 - said to you: "Best to keep your head below the parapet - too many snipers around.")

My advice? Do no such thing! Why in heavens name should you?

I must add that I personally am not violently anti-McCann. I don't know the McCann's. I don't imagine any blogger does. I do find it a peculiar trend when bloggers defend what they did to their children and hold them in high esteem whilst at the same time stating what they, the McCann's did was wrong, that they themselves do not condone it or would not behave in this way, but excuse it as a 'mistake' simply because it is the McCann's. Extraordinary behaviour!

I can see why you would, as you say find the 'behaviours' in this case fascinating.

I do know what the McCann's did to their children, their shameful neglect, and I have, like most others watched them for over 2 and one half years, as they played out this 'abduction' farce, lying and spinning tale after tale, as Clarence Mitchell said 'shaping' stories for the press.

I don't think too many of us miss the point you made MML when you said that their behaviour fascinates you and that you would like to know what goes on in their heads.

Most wonder what went on in their heads then and now. Most wonder what drives these people to act as they do.

Most wonder at how they can 'perform' as they do in such tragic circumstances.

And their public appearances ARE 'performances' of that there is no doubt. Kate in one interview states this. When speaking of Gerry and a statement he made to the press, she expresses how Gerry 'PERFORMED WELL, once again!' She applauded him so to speak.

I'm sure there are few in this world, from any walk of life, who have followed this case, who are, perhaps not fascinated, but left aghast, disturbed, after bearing witness to such performances. Aghast not only by their many performances, but by their behaviour in general.

So often I have listened to them make a statement which completely contradicts those gone before, and I ask, how in heavens name can they stand there and do so in public, in interview, in documentary, how I ask can they allow their spokesperson to speak the words, when they must KNOW absolutely that what is being said is a lie, a distortion of the truth, a contradiction of what has gone before?

I'm sure criminal psychologists would have much to say re the behaviour of these people.

So no, I do not consider myself to be anti McCann (as said at comment 168 of bloggers on this site)

I am anti, child abuse!

I robustly defend the rights of children and their right to be cared for and protected. Something which was not afforded the McCann children on any night of their stay in PDL.

What we can be sure of, at this point in time, is that it was the neglectful behaviour of her parent’s, their failure to protect their children as far as is humanly possible, which resulted in the child disappearing without trace. Until such time as evidence is found to conclude any specific scenario, Kate and Gerry McCann are wholly responsible for whatever happened to their daughter.

I am not anti McCann - but anti child abuse - and I make no excuses or exceptions for anyone who abuses children. For me there is no use saying, 'oh it was a mistake, I wouldn't do it, but let's move on, they have paid the price.'

This does not help Madeleine, nor does it assist in any way the protection for children in the future if we willy nilly accept that it is okay for some to neglect but not others.

You state you are not pro McCann. (I think that is quite a shame that you feel you have to express this) Also you say, that you think they are guilty. Of what I am not sure? You feel too that what you write gives the impression that you support the McCann's.

MML, I don't care whether someone believes in these people or not, or thinks they are innocent or not, of

(a) crimes against Madeleine(b) of the crime of neglect against all three children. Or both.

I know my own mind, I make up my own mind, based on information I obtain. I reach my own conclusions. I am happy to discuss all aspects of this case with anyone who cares to participate.

I like to hear all viewpoints.

When I responded to your post, I did not think of you as either being pro or anti McCann. I actually do not like these terms and do not use them.

I respond to the content of posts as I did with yours. You seemed to make conflicting statements so perhaps this is why some were not sure where you were coming from or going for that matter.

I don't feel that you have to justify your comments, none of us do. And I certainly don't like to think that anyone has to clarify their position with regard their thoughts on the behaviour of the McCann parents by announcing that they are 'not pro' or otherwise.

I can only say to you, to keep posting your opinions, not all may agree with what you write, but each of us are in the same boat in this regard. Where would we be in this world if we ‘spoke up’ on any matter only if we are guaranteed -'approval?'

Have the courage of your convictions MML. If you want to post, make comment. Do so! If you want to 'read only' that is fine also. But I would say do not resort to this simply as you are afraid of any response you may receive. Some we ‘win’ some we lose. Go for it!

Hey, you might respond to me by telling me to butt out and mind my own business - a chance I take.

The McCann's on the Oprah Winfrey Show, told of how their checks were simply to 'listen' for crying, NOT to do visual checks on their children. They were mimicking they said a system practiced at resorts in Europe though not at the OC in Portugal. Oprah addresses the audience in this regard, and takes great pains to explain to the audience that 'listening only' was the purpose of any checks.

If you recall also, Gerry McCann said that on the night of 3rd May 2007, the only reason he did a visual check was that the door to the bedroom where the children slept, he noticed was more open than usual, so he decided to take a look.

Kate McCann also stated (in the McCann documentary) that as she entered the apartment through the patio door, she stood for a moment and there was silence, she said she was ready to 'about turn' and leave when she too noticed the bedroom door was more open than when she and Gerry had left that evening.

So if we are to believe what they say - LISTENING ONLY is what they did each evening, until of course on the night of the 3rd May 2007 when most everything changed.

The following is a little clip from the Oprah Show:

Continuing from where Oprah explains to audience that 'listening' was all that group did.

Oprah - So you went at 10 and there was no crying?

Kate - I went at 10 and I went into apartment and no crying. I stopped and there was no crying, and then I just noticed that the door was quite open.

Oprah - Which door?

Kate - The bedroom door. Sorry! And we usually have the door, as Gerry said sort of, not closed but a little ajar so that a little bit of light gets in and its not too dark in the room. erm so I thought Matt must have gone in and left the door open.

Oprah - (directing this to Gerry) Same thing you thought?

Gerry nods in agreement.

---

What I find interesting here, is that Kate McCann said that as the bedroom door was 'quite open' she thought that Matt Oldfield MUST have gone in and left it open!

Oprah puts it to Gerry McCann that this is what he thought also.

Gerry agrees.

What is odd about this, is - Why would Gerry McCann think the same as Kate McCann - that Matt Oldfield had been in the bedroom and left the door open? When Gerry McCann did his check at around 9:05/9:10 pm, and noticed the door to be more open, Matt Oldfield had not been in the apartment at this time. Oldfield did not enter the apartment we are told until around 9:30 pm. So how could Gerry have thought the same as Kate McCann that Oldfield had been in the bedroom and left the door open?

Doesn't make sense.

Even supposing that Oprah was referring to Gerry thinking that Oldfield had left the door open on Kate's check and not his own. It would not make sense either. For the simple reason that Gerry was NOT with Kate when she made her discovery.

When Kate announced to those at the table that Madeleine was gone, and that the bedroom door had been more open, it would only have been a matter of Oldfield confirming that he had not done so. So at what point would Gerry McCann have then thought Oldfield had? No need for him to.

Another wee mystery.

Or had Matt Oldfiled been in that apartment earlier that evening, that is earlier than the check we are told he did at 9:30 pm? If so, how did he gain entry? He was only told of the unlocked patio door at the dinner table.

I don't believe Oldfield made any check at all, but something not right with any of the accounts which include him.

I asked A Miller to point me in the direction of where that was said - I wasn't seeking to make any point, I was asking for a reference, because if that was said somewhere, it is contradicted in Gerry's statement of 10th May 2007.

For the purpose of clarity, I'll re-state my question

''@ A Miller

Can you point me to where the McCanns say that the only night they made visual checks on the children was the last night, and on the other nights they just listened ? Thanks''

Okay ? No agenda, no point being made. Simply asking if s/he can point me to where that was said so that I can compare it to what was said elsewhere. Some people are awfully quick to jump on one's back at the moment.

MML 164 - please don`t stop commenting - as I`ve said before, your posts bring the necessary rationale to this forum which stops it degenerating into a lynch mob mentality. Perhaps some people didn`t see your apology about the translations.

I realise some people on here don`t get where you`re coming from and tend to over react sometimes, but IMO your posts are refreshing.

People driven by their own personal issues, obsessions, revenge etc. never see things clearly. We needs minds like yours to keep a clear head.

mentioning the fact that they have been interviewed not only on tv but many other times and have also made numerous statements it seems unbelievable to me that they havent made many more mistakes than have been reported .I am sure that if i had to tell even a small lie after being questioned for about two minutes i would give myself away..Just goes to show how different people are,They have been doing it for over two years

This is one of the reasons why the reconstruction was vital - the story has changed so many times.

In the first statement Gerry gave on 4th may 2007, he stated that he had entered the apartment the previous evening via the locked front door, using his key, and that Kate had done the same.

In a further statement on 10th May, gerry tells a different story. This time, he states that he entered through the unlocked patio doors.

The stories told by the entire group as regards the checking of the children, the locking or unlocking of doors are inconsistent all the way through. In my personal opinion, this may be because there was a concerted effort to make themselves appear less negligent, but of course all that happens is that they appear untruthful.

To an extent, it is all moot. No parent who gave a damn about their children would leave them unattended in this fashion, so I don't give a tuppenny one about who was checking, how often or by what means. They were all disgraceful, neglectful parents and the fact that they would even consider for the tiniest second that this was an appropriate way to behave still staggers me to this day.

You might be able to help me with something else, too. A number of the Tapas 9 made additional statements on 10th May, including Gerry, but I can't find another one for Kate around that date. There doesn't seem to be anything again until the pre- and post- arguido statement taken in September 2007.

Do you know if she was questioned again about the events of that night ?

Also, can anyone locate an interview the McCanns gave in the early weeks when Gerry came up with a statistic for the chances of a child being taken from a LOCKED holiday apartment in this way ? I remember it well, but I can't locate it now. In my opinion, it was a clear attempt to deceive, as according to his own statement, she wasn't in a locked apartment.

I had not noticed before that Gerry was also saying about the door being open.

But I think that Oldfield did enter the apartment about 9.30pm and he looked along the shelf with the books, as mentioned in his statement, and no mention of Cuddlecat. The time about 9.30pm.

Oldfield was more interested in books than checking the kids, as he only noticed two of them sleeping.

Initially, Kate said the first thing that alerted her to Madeleine taken was Cuddlecat on the shelf.

I believe it was there.

I think it was put there after 9.30pm, after Oldfield left.

Kate mentioning Cuddlecat on the shelf, would have meant it was Bundleman who put it there about 9.05pm when JT said she saw him.

Then, suddenly there is Kate McCann with a change of story and saying Cuddlecat was on the bed after all.

Why?

Has she not realised that Oldfield was going to mention his checking of the books on the shelf at 9.30pm in his witness statement.

Oldfield's check, with O'Brien, was at 9.30pm.

O'Brien's child was sick, so he asked Oldfield to tell Jane on his return to Tapas to come back after her meal, so he could go have his steak.

I think it was then, about 9.35pm, that Gerry may have gone to check on their kids after hearing O'Brien's child was sick, and Gerry put Cuddlecat on the shelf after he found Madeleine behind the settee holding it.

This happened while Jane Tanner was finishing her meal, and before she came back about 9.45pm.

It is on his check about 9.35pm when Gerry saw the door open and Madeleine missing, and that is when he searched for Madeleine, (didn't somebody report they heard someone calling 'Madeleine' well before Kate gave the alarm), and he found her dead behind the settee, and cleaned up best he could using the red t shirt, and then legged it off to the beach area to hide the body.

On the way he was seen by the Smiths, and also by Jane Tanner at about 9.45pm, who caught sight of the back of him, and mixed up that sighting (Bundleman), with her trip back 9.05pm when she saw Gerry and Wilkins talking.

What you said about him mentioning he also saw the door open reinforces that it was Gerry who went in after Oldfield's check at 9.30pm.

If no Cuddlecat on the shelf with the books at 9.30pm, then it was not the Bundleman at 9.10pm, and JT's supposed sighting, that put him there when the toy seen later at 10pm by Kate.

I think that is why Kate had to change her story about the toy on the shelf, as it would have been obvious he was put there after 9.30pm when Oldfield left, and would have shed doubt on JT's Bundleman sighting at 9.05pm.

I also think the reason Kate went to check about 10pm was because Gerry was so long coming back from his check, which he had left to do when Oldfield got back.

He then could have slipped back into Tapas while she was gone to the apartment, after hiding the child.

Nobody was taking notes of comings and goings at the Tapas. Anybody could have been anywhere. The more people there are, the less sure of what others are doing.

This explanation is not writ in stone of course, but I think this is what could have happened, and it would explain why Gerry knew about the door and agreed with Kate.

And it could explain why Kate changed her story from the toy being on the shelf, to being on the bed.

By the way, the shelf in question was not in the bedroom.

So how did Gerry know about the door unless he had seen it himself, and before Kate saw it?

Obvious answer, he could not, unless he had been in the apartment after Oldfield at 9.30pm and before Kate at 10pm.

Is the devil really in the detail as far as the McCanns are concerned?